United States v. Williams

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50747
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERRY MCVALE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant
-------------------
Consolidated with
No. 03-50748
-------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
TERRY MCVALE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-03-CR-21-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terry McVale Williams (Williams) appeals his convictions for
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of five grams or
more of cocaine base. Williams contends that he was convicted on
insufficient evidence because there was no evidence to corroborate
his confession. Williams further contends that because the
evidence was insufficient to convict him, the evidence was also
insufficient to support the revocation of his supervised release.
Because Williams moved for a judgment of acquittal in the
district court, we review the sufficiency of the evidence to
determine whether, considering all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir.
2000). The extrinsic evidence, which included the testimony of
several surveillance officers, was sufficient to corroborate
Williams’s confession, and the evidence as a whole supports his
convictions. See United States v. Garth, 773 F.2d 1469, 1479 (5th
Cir. 1985). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in revoking Williams’s supervised release based on his convictions
for aiding and abetting. See United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d
214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Williams’s convictions and
the revocation of his supervised release are AFFIRMED.
2